FY 2015 Budget (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Could the 58% bracket at least be gotten rid of since it means having two in the 50's and the highest is just 3% above it?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Could the 58% bracket at least be gotten rid of since it means having two in the 50's and the highest is just 3% above it?

My concern is not the number of brackets in and of itself, but that the brackets are representative.

[TNF]

I will not support an increase in any regressive taxes, nor a cut in any progressive taxes.

[Sec. of State Superique]

I'd actually rather see the FTT at 0.75% than 0.5%, as in the end, it does make a difference. Not necessarily that much on the revenue side, but such a tax can help combat speculating and stock market gambling.

Also, do we have an agreement with the EU and maybe also Japan/Singapore/China/Hongkong, that they have the same FTT as we have? Otherwise, this would just make no sense, instead of transacting then in New York, they'll do it in London or Frankfurt.

0.75% level of taxes are huge. Unlike other kind of taxation, raising just 0.25 of a Financial Transaction Tax ends up having a catastrophic effect in our economy. It will mean that every transaction will cost 50% under the next fiscal year. This will certainly lead investors to get out of our nation.

Furthermore, I'm also concerned about the international backing of our financial transaction tax. Even so, I believe that at least the Eurozone Countries might have already adopted a FTT as well since their major "competitor" (Wall Street) is already complying with those rules. Nonetheless, this can be a priority for our future Foreign Policy.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Just giving an idea:

Instead of making the Income Tax more complicated and create so many brackets that will just disturb the efforts of our own Atlasian IRS to collect taxes, why don't we start discussing better the way that we deal with inheritance tax (we clearly don't have a great specific data for that matter)?

[Cranberry]

I'd actually rather see the FTT at 0.75% than 0.5%, as in the end, it does make a difference. Not necessarily that much on the revenue side, but such a tax can help combat speculating and stock market gambling.

Also, do we have an agreement with the EU and maybe also Japan/Singapore/China/Hongkong, that they have the same FTT as we have? Otherwise, this would just make no sense, instead of transacting then in New York, they'll do it in London or Frankfurt.

0.75% level of taxes are huge. Unlike other kind of taxation, raising just 0.25 of a Financial Transaction Tax ends up having a catastrophic effect in our economy. It will mean that every transaction will cost 50% under the next fiscal year. This will certainly lead investors to get out of our nation.

Furthermore, I'm also concerned about the international backing of our financial transaction tax. Even so, I believe that at least the Eurozone Countries might have already adopted a FTT as well since their major "competitor" (Wall Street) is already complying with those rules. Nonetheless, this can be a priority for our future Foreign Policy.

In the end, I would be just as okay with a 0.5% FFT as a 0.75%, if such an increase really has those effects.
Yes, the international banking is my biggest concern here as well. I guess too that the Eurozone will have adopted such a tax, as there is major backing for this in Europe; but it would certainly not hurt to see that each and every major financial hub introduce such a tax.

[Lumine]

I wanted to lower taxes during my presidency but we just can't afford to do it with all of the programs we have in atlasia.

My tax plan was pretty much dead on arrival, but I mainly introduced it for the debate more than anything. I couldn't let the senate stall on my watch.

And yeah, my education bill didn't help but I felt it implemented some necessary changes.

All in all, I think we are really going to need to change the way we all deal of economic policy, since we had to wait until the budget to see the negatives of programs that looked fantastic and easy to support on paper.

I am concerned about increasing the number of brackets and that it could add to the complexity of the tax code.

Trust me, so was I. But I don't see any other way to make the system more progressive without significant cuts to spending to account for lost revenues.

Well, another alternative comes forward if we are able to get an estimate on the effects of the Health Care Reform (I just couldn't find the right data myself), as one of the arguments we put forward was that it could reduce the high spending that the old system meant. I chose to propose a trillion for Health Care as a very conservative estimate, but it the effects were more positive than originally thought we could reduce enough spending to reduce some of the changes in the tax code. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I wanted to lower taxes during my presidency but we just can't afford to do it with all of the programs we have in atlasia.

My tax plan was pretty much dead on arrival, but I mainly introduced it for the debate more than anything. I couldn't let the senate stall on my watch.

And yeah, my education bill didn't help but I felt it implemented some necessary changes.

All in all, I think we are really going to need to change the way we all deal of economic policy, since we had to wait until the budget to see the negatives of programs that looked fantastic and easy to support on paper.

I am concerned about increasing the number of brackets and that it could add to the complexity of the tax code.

Trust me, so was I. But I don't see any other way to make the system more progressive without significant cuts to spending to account for lost revenues.

Well, another alternative comes forward if we are able to get an estimate on the effects of the Health Care Reform (I just couldn't find the right data myself), as one of the arguments we put forward was that it could reduce the high spending that the old system meant. I chose to propose a trillion for Health Care as a very conservative estimate, but it the effects were more positive than originally thought we could reduce enough spending to reduce some of the changes in the tax code. 

Well, I'm not a deficit hawk. I'd be hesitant to reduce tax revenues too deeply at the moment. I just don't want us to get into a structural deficit scenario, where we use spending reductions or newly found resources and the natural instinct is to cut taxes with it.

It's a reasonable idea - but we need structurally stable revenues and demands, if you want to build in a permanent change in the tax code. The changes in my plan won't have significant impacts on the bottom line, plus we need to encourage spending at the lower end of the scale and get more small businesses hiring. If that delivers, then we should get increased revenues. But we can't risk valuable programs because we a) can't have a deficit b) we'd prefer lower taxes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wanted to lower taxes during my presidency but we just can't afford to do it with all of the programs we have in atlasia.

My tax plan was pretty much dead on arrival, but I mainly introduced it for the debate more than anything. I couldn't let the senate stall on my watch.

And yeah, my education bill didn't help but I felt it implemented some necessary changes.

All in all, I think we are really going to need to change the way we all deal of economic policy, since we had to wait until the budget to see the negatives of programs that looked fantastic and easy to support on paper.

I am concerned about increasing the number of brackets and that it could add to the complexity of the tax code.

Trust me, so was I. But I don't see any other way to make the system more progressive without significant cuts to spending to account for lost revenues.

Well, another alternative comes forward if we are able to get an estimate on the effects of the Health Care Reform (I just couldn't find the right data myself), as one of the arguments we put forward was that it could reduce the high spending that the old system meant. I chose to propose a trillion for Health Care as a very conservative estimate, but it the effects were more positive than originally thought we could reduce enough spending to reduce some of the changes in the tax code. 

The savings are not as great as they could have been since all five regions are functioning as a monopoly right now since none took the step to allow competition. Not even the IDS, though we were coming close before Scott departed from our midst.

[Lumine]

I wanted to lower taxes during my presidency but we just can't afford to do it with all of the programs we have in atlasia.

My tax plan was pretty much dead on arrival, but I mainly introduced it for the debate more than anything. I couldn't let the senate stall on my watch.

And yeah, my education bill didn't help but I felt it implemented some necessary changes.

All in all, I think we are really going to need to change the way we all deal of economic policy, since we had to wait until the budget to see the negatives of programs that looked fantastic and easy to support on paper.

I am concerned about increasing the number of brackets and that it could add to the complexity of the tax code.

Trust me, so was I. But I don't see any other way to make the system more progressive without significant cuts to spending to account for lost revenues.

Well, another alternative comes forward if we are able to get an estimate on the effects of the Health Care Reform (I just couldn't find the right data myself), as one of the arguments we put forward was that it could reduce the high spending that the old system meant. I chose to propose a trillion for Health Care as a very conservative estimate, but it the effects were more positive than originally thought we could reduce enough spending to reduce some of the changes in the tax code. 

The savings are not as great as they could have been since all five regions are functioning as a monopoly right now since none took the step to allow competition. Not even the IDS, though we were coming close before Scott departed from our midst.

In your opinion, Yankee, would it be feasible to lower the spending in Health Care to, say, 950 or 900 billion on the assumption that the system would be saving us that much money? If so, then I woul propose an amendment to lower that amount so we can reduce some of the tax increases for at least the middle class, and I think we would have a balance acceptable to at least a majority.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It could possibly work, but I would feel better if the at least some of the regions had taken the next step.


Damn I miss Scott.

I will be happy to introduce the amendment for you, Mr. President.

[Lumine]

Thank you, Yankee!

Now, the reasoning behind this proposal is to conciliate the fact that a more progressive tax system is going to pass either way with the concern that some of the tax rates might be too high or might not benefit some sectors of the population, so the idea here is to follow the premise of a much cheaper Health Care System by lowering its spending to 930 billion, with the only new expense being the expansion of the space program (which is still believe is key for the future). All in all, we save 64 billion in spending and we reduce it to 30 billions or so lower than the Averroes Nix budget despite this year's increases.

I still lack expertice when it comes to tax rates, but I have cancelled the raise of the Financial Transaction Tax, corrected the mistake in the Health Care Payroll tax (the formal change to 6.1% to 8% lacked the proper symbol) and lowered most of the income taxes by 1% per bracket with a few exceptions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

How comfortable is everyone with this?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am offering it officially now.


Not that I am uninterested in Polnut's question, it is that it will be nearly 24 hours before I can get back on again to do it.

[bore]

Senators have 36 hours to object to Yankee's amendment


As for Polnut's question I must say I'm not really that comfortable with this. As far as I can work out e're cutting healthcare spending for what amounts to a tax cut for the rich (the tax bracket the majority of atlasians fall under stays the same).

[Cranberry]

Yes, Senator bore's comments are my thoughts as well. I'm on board with the cutting of taxes for the second and maybe also third bracket, but from the fourth bracket on, I'd rather keep it the way we have it...

[windjammer]

Health care is going to be cut by 60 billions???

[TNF]

I object to the amendment. Why are we cutting the FTT? The rich can afford to pay more.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes, I also object. We don't know for sure the demands of the health budget, so I would prefer to over-estimate the amount required, than under-provide. So I'm not quite sure where we got the final health number from.

Plus, there are very very few who would be impacted by a 0.25% increase in the FTT.

Most people are not going to be flying about with massive stock purchases. Let's say a regular person makes a stock purchase of $15,000 worth of stock.

0.5% = $75
0.75% = $112.50

I understand the President is concerned about a deficit... but we still have unemployment (particularly under-employment) that's too high, inflation is above wage-growth (therefore a drop in real earnings)... the Government needs to be able to do what it does best. I'm happy to pursue a surplus, as we had before, but I'm not going to take risks with the health and welfare of the Atlasian people to do it.

[Lumine]

Alright, I understand that there are major concerns with this, and finding a common ground is certainly in the interest of all here.

I guess my main questions for the opposed Senators are, what type of cuts could you support when it comes to health care spending? And, what tax cuts (all of this based on the current Polnut amendment that was adopted, not mine) would you consider and for which brackets? I'd like to think we could at least make some advances in that area.

[bore]

Senators a vote is now open on yankee's amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain

[TNF]

Nay

[Cranberry]

Nay

[SWE]

Nay

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY